Kan. City & O. R. Co. v. Frey
| Decision Date | 19 November 1890 |
| Citation | 47 N.W. 87,30 Neb. 790 |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
| Parties | KANSAS CITY & O. R. CO. ET AL. v. FREY. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
1. A bill, which has but one general object that is fairly expressed in the title thereof, is not objectionable on the ground that it contains two or more subjects.
2. The act approved March 3, 1881, giving a laborer and material-man a lien upon a railway for material furnished and labor performed on such railway, does not contain more than one subject, and is not in conflict with the constitution.
Error to district court, Fillmore county; MORRIS, Judge.Hazlett & Bates, for plaintiffs in error.
Maule & Sloan, for defendant in error.
This action was brought in the district court of Fillmore county against the plaintiffs in error, to foreclose three liens claimed against the road-bed, rolling stock, etc., of the railway, for a balance due on a contract for the construction of said road through Fillmore county. The first cause of action was for a balance due the defendant in error on a subcontract for grading one mile of said road. The second cause was for work performed on said road by one William Pelker, and the third for work performed thereon by one A. Parviance. These claims were assigned to the defendant in error before bringing the action. On the trial of the cause, judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant in error, and the railway company brings the cause into this court.
The principal error relied upon is that the act approved March 3, 1881, making the railway companies liable for work performed, and material furnished in the construction or repair of the road, is unconstitutional and void, because the bill contains more than one subject not embraced in the title. In White v. City of Lincoln, 5 Neb. 505, this court held that where a bill has but one general object, it will be sufficient if the subject is fairly expressed in the title. The question is very fully considered in People v. Mahaney, 13 Mich. 494, and it was held in effect that, where the title expressed the general purpose of the bill, it would be sufficient. The object of the framers of the constitution was not to embarrass legislation by making laws unnecessarily restrictive in their scope and operation, and thus greatly multiply their number, but it was intended that a proposed measure should stand upon its own merits, and that the several members of the legislature should be apprised of the purpose of the act when...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trumble v. Trumble
...and pass the bill as a whole, where probably a majority could not be procured in favor of any one of its different objects. (Kansas City & O. R. Co. v. Frey, supra.) the act in the light of this purpose we think that it is within the constitutional inhibition. While all of its provisions ar......
-
Affholder v. State ex rel. McMullen
... ... Ala. 207, 11 So. 444; State v. Madson, 43 Minn. 438, ... 45 N.W. 856.) In Kansas City & O. R. Co. v. Frey, 30 ... Neb. 790, 47 N.W. 87, it was held: "A bill which has but ... one ... ...
-
Affholder v. State ex rel. McMullen
...act as expressed in its title. Barnhill v. Teague, 96 Ala. 207, 11 South. 444;State v. Madson (Minn.) 45 N. W. 856. In Railroad Co. v. Frey, 30 Neb. 790, 47 N. W. 87, it was held that: “A bill which has but one general object, that is clearly expressed in the title thereof, is not objection......
-
K. C. & O. R. Co. v. Frey
... ... void, because the bill contains more than one subject not ... embraced in the title ... In ... White v. City of Lincoln, 5 Neb. 505, this court ... held that where a bill has but one general object it will be ... sufficient if the subject is fairly ... ...